The most important issue affecting the educational system in the Philippines is identifying the

role of education in national development and vice versa.

Several researchers had delved into the different components affecting the educational
system, more specifically, whether it can solve the multifarious problems in society. Education
has been looked into as the means of alleviating poverty, decreasing criminalities, increasing
economic benefits and ultimately uplifting the standard of living of the Filipino masses. With
these in mind, the government on its part has been continuously investing so much resource into
the education sector. However, with the complexity of educational issues, solutions are far from
reality.

Allied with this issue is the preparation of our students from the basic education up to
tertiary level. The questions of how well are the schools equipped and able to train the pupils
under their care are crucial. It is a sad reality that only seven out of ten pupils who enroll in
Grade 1 finish the elementary curriculum, and from the seven who continue to secondary, only 3
are able to complete the curriculum. From these three only one can complete the tertiary
education. Based on this scenario, how can we expect our students to help in nation building
when they do not have the necessary skills and trainings?

Reality is that, formal education has not achieved what it was supposed to achieve. Our
schools right now are in a quandary on how to keep children in school, with the increasing rate
of drop outs. The functional literacy of the Filipinos is at its minimum reflecting the sad state of
education. There are rampant problems of child labor, where children who are supposed to be in
the classroom are working to help augment family income. Unemployment rate is rising every
year as more students graduate from colleges and universities, who cannot be accommodated by
the labor market. Underemployment is the name of the game since professionals are forced to
accept employment far from their areas of specialization and training because they need to work
and earn for their families.

The gap between the few who are rich and the majority who are poor is becoming wider
and bigger. Now what has education got to do with this? If experts claimed that education is an
instrument for national development, where does the problem lie?

The educational system does not receive much budget from the government. This
resulted to poor facilities. Schools in the rural areas do not receive much support from the
government. School supplies such as books are received by them almost at the end of the year.
What use will it give the pupils and students? To add more insult, textbooks contain a lot of
errors in spelling and facts presented. This is a clear indication of a government’s failure to
provide the basic services needed by its people.

Another important issue confronting the educational system is the constant change in programs
and implementations as well as loose monitoring of the agenda. One factor affecting this is the
incessant lobbying and intrusion of politicians and or politics in the system.
 It is a fact that technocrats in the education department are political appointees, hence
they serve at the whims and pleasures of the appointing officer. It is also a fact that every
political administration wanted to have their names imprinted in every government program or
project. This is very true in the Department of Education, when for instance, a department
secretary appointed by a particular president assumes office, he will be implementing programs
and projects attuned to the battle cry of that administration. Therefore, the previous programs and
projects implemented by the previous administration shall be discontinued, regardless that
program or project is workable and effective, because it is not the priority of the present
administration, and does not carry their names. Added to that is the non evaluation of programs
implemented.

Politics in education is an issue that presently pervades educational system in the country.
The government, specifically the legislators, is inept in formulating laws that can address the
crisis in the educational system. A sad reality that is happening right now is the formulation of
policies with the main purpose of making our educational system at par with those in other
countries, but there are no concrete guidelines as to how these are to be implemented. Most
educational experts are technocrats with no experience in the field.

Yes, their programs are good, to say the least, but because of their lack of experience in
actual classroom teaching, they fail to study the application of these programs. One specific
example is the Bridge Program that was implemented a few years ago. This program assessed the
competency of Grade Six pupils to be promoted to High School. There were grade six pupils
who scored below the passing mark that were made to repeat grade six to bridge their admission
to high school. Thus, this added another year of elementary schooling. However, after a year of
its implementation, the program was stopped. Worst, teachers in the classrooms were not duly
informed of the reasons for its non-continuance. This is just one of the many educational
programs implemented in the Philippine educational system that were not properly monitored
and evaluated. This brings to a conclusion that Filipinos are only good planners but not good
implementers and evaluators.

Undeniably, administrators of state run institutions solicit financial support from

politicians who can sustain their school projects. There is nothing wrong with this. However, if
the support given by politician must be equated by some favors from school officials, this
becomes a major concern by everybody. There are cases where principals, supervisors and even
superintendent of schools and divisions are appointed because they are recommended by well
known senators, congressmen, governors and even mayors. This practice extends even up to the
lowest level. Politicians recommend their relatives to be hired as teachers and other school staff.
And if the principal has some debt of gratitude to the politician because of the support he is
giving to the school, his recommendation cannot be refused. This practice defeats the purpose of
screening applicants for teaching positions because even if you are first in the ranking, but you
do not have a political back up, you will be the least priority in hiring. Although we cannot
totally separate politics in education, it is of great import that objectivity, fairness and justice
must be observed. It is very ironic that schemes like these happen in an institution that is
expected to teach and inculcate good moral values and virtues among the young people of
Philippine society.
 Another important issue of concern is the so-called globalization of education. This
concern was a response to the ever changing setting in the international academic community
where students must be globally competitive. Thus, schools must transform their orientation
from being parochial to liberal.

Programs must be re aligned to meet international standards. Qualifications of teachers,

facilities of the institutions and instructional materials and strategies must conform with
international accreditation requirements. But how many of our institutions, are able to meet this
requirement? Tertiary institutions continue to produce graduates who do not have the necessary
employability skills, not only in terms of the local norms but more so with international
standards. Sadly, even if our graduates work abroad they end up working as laborers, domestics
and other blue collar workers which do not fit their educational credentials. I believe, that you
will agree with me that is this not the concept of globalization we have in mind.

The Department of Education implemented the K-12 program. This is in response to the
alignment of the basic education curriculum to international standards. The previous system of 6
– 4 – 4, according to the education experts lacks the required number of years that our students
have to spend in school, from the elementary, secondary up to the tertiary level. Hence, there is a
need to add two more years to our basic education so that the students will have more years in
developing the necessary employability skills they must have after they graduate from secondary
school. But is this really the answer to the present handicap of our educational system? Will
adding two years bring more benefits? Or will it just result to more financial implications, not
only to the parents but also to the government? This is a concern that has to be addressed before
it becomes too late for us to realize the impact it will create in the succeeding years.

With the constant change in the basic education curriculum, teachers need to upgrade
themselves in order that they can properly implement these changes. Upgrading requires
attendance to trainings, seminars, conferences and even enrollment in graduate education. But
with the present conditions of the teachers in the public and private schools only very few can
afford this, unless government or the school intervenes and provide upgrading activities for free.

As educators, what then can we do to transform the image that the educational system
had propagated through the years? As an educator, I believe that total transformation must be
implemented in the education sector of the country. When I say transformation of the education
sector I refer to the total re orientation of the system which would start from policy
transformation. Education policies and programs, including the curriculum must be carefully
evaluated and studied whether they are attuned to the needs of the people and the country.
Review of the provisions must be done in all levels and participation of the stakeholders must be
solicited. Experts must be realistic in coming up with more attainable policies, that will address
not only the educational problems but more so contribute to economic growth and development
of the country.

I also believe in the values reorientation of the Filipinos as a key to national development.
The integration of values education in the curriculum, I believe is still not enough to address this
need. Values become more permanent in the minds and hearts of the pupils and students when
they are caught, modeled by their mentors, rather than being discussed as abstract concepts in the
classrooms.

Thus, there is an urgent call for teacher transformation, in terms of their values
orientation. I believe that teachers cannot become effective models of good moral values unless
they undergo some process of values transformation. It is always wise to say “follow what I say
and do,” rather than “follow what I say, do not follow what I do.” It is only when pupils and
students concretely observe their teachers consistently practice these good values that they will
be able to replicate these in themselves. These, I believe is easier said than done. But unless we
start doing it, we cannot claim tried.

Lastly, I believe that teachers’ transformation must include their upgrading or updating
for professional and personal development. Even if the salary of the ordinary public school
teacher had been standardized to be competitive, with the increasing economic crisis, it will still
be not enough to afford them attendance to seminars, trainings and enrollment in graduate
education. Hence, government support and intervention, along this line is very much needed. Our
teachers are professionals, and I believe their pre-service training had equipped them with the
necessary skills to teach. Yet, with the advancement in science and technology, there is a great
need for them to acquire competence in the use of these state of the art equipments to enhance
their teaching skills. The government must invest on our teachers because it is through them that
we train and develop the minds of our future leaders. As they say, show me your schools and I
will tell you what society you will have.

REFERENCES
Apilado, Digna (2008). A History of Paradox: Some Notes on Philippine Public Education in the
20th Century.
Barrows, David (1910). What May Be Expected from Philippine Education?, The Journal of
Race Development, Vol 1, No. 2, pp.156 – 168.
Bautista, M. C., Bernanrdo, A, and Ocampo, D (2008). When reforms Don’t Transform:
Reflections on Institutional reforms in the Department of Education, Human Development
Network Discussion Paper.
Constantino, Renato (1959). The Miseducation of the Filipino, Weekly Graphics.
Doronila, Ma. Luisa (1999). The Transformation of Philippine education: An Analysis and
Critique of Some Current and Emerging Policy Reforms.
Funtecha, H. & Padilla, M. (2004). Study Guide in Philippine History for Teachers and Students.
Iloilo City: Mindset Publishing.
Guillermo, Ramon (1997). Rationalizing Failures: The Philippine Government in the Education
Sector.
Manalang, Priscilla (1977). Issues in Philippine Education, Philippine Sociological Review, Vol
25, pp. 63 – 68
Pertierra, Raul (1995). The Mythology and Politics of Philippine Education, Kasarinlan, Vol. 10,
No. 3, pp.110 – 120.
Trewby, James (2007). The Philippines: Development Issues and Education.